The idea of Scottish independence has moved
from the implausible to the very possible. Whether or not it actually happens,
the idea that the union of England and Scotland, which has existed for more
than 300 years, could be dissolved has enormous implications in its own right,
and significant implications for Europe and even for global stability.
The United Kingdom was the center of gravity of the international system from the end of the Napoleonic Wars until World War II. It crafted an imperial structure that shaped not only the international system but also the internal political order of countries as diverse as the United States and India. The United Kingdom devised and drove the Industrial Revolution. In many ways, this union was a pivot of world history. To realize it might be dissolved is startling and reveals important things about the direction of the world.
Scotland and England are historical enemies.
Their sense of competing nationhoods stretches back centuries, and their
occupation of the same island has caused them to fight many wars. Historically
they have distrusted each other, and each has given the other good reason for
the distrust. The national question was intertwined with dynastic struggles and
attempts at union imposed either through conquest or dynastic intrigue. The British
were deeply concerned that foreign powers, particularly France, would use
Scotland as a base for attacking England. The Scots were afraid that the
English desire to prevent this would result in the exploitation of Scotland by
England, and perhaps the extinction of the Scottish nation.
The Union of 1707 was the result of acts of
parliaments on both sides and led to the creation of the Parliament of Great
Britain. England's motive was its old geopolitical fears. Scotland was driven
more by financial problems it was unable to solve by itself. What was created
was a united island, acting as a single nation. From an outsider's perspective,
Scotland and England were charming variations on a single national theme -- the
British -- and it was not necessary to consider them as two nations. If there
was ever a national distinction that one would have expected to be extinguished
in other than cultural terms, it was this one. Now we learn that it is intact.
We need a deeper intellectual framework for understanding why Scottish
nationalism has persisted.
The Principle of National Self-Determination
The French Enlightenment and subsequent
revolution had elevated the nation to the moral center of the world. It was a
rebellion against the transnational dynasties and fragments of nations that had
governed much of Europe. The Enlightenment saw the nation, which it defined in
terms of shared language, culture and history, as having an inherent right to
self-determination and as the framework for the republican democracies it
argued were the morally correct form of government.
After the French Revolution, some nations, such
as Germany and Italy, united into nation-states. After World War I, when the
Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, Romanov and Ottoman empires all collapsed, a wave of
devolution took place in Europe. The empires devolved into their national
components. Some were amalgamated into one larger nation, such as Yugoslavia or
Czechoslovakia, while others, such as Poland, were single nation-states. Some
had republican democracies, others had variations on the theme, and others were
dictatorships. A second major wave of devolution occurred in 1992, when the
Soviet Union collapsed and its constituent republics became independent
nation-states.
The doctrine of the right to national
self-determination drove the first wave of revolts against European imperialism
in the Western Hemisphere, creating republics in the Americas. The second wave
of colonial rising and European withdrawal occurred after World War II. In some
cases, nations became self-determining. In other cases, nation-states simply
were invented without corresponding to any nation and actually dividing many.
In other cases, there were nations, but republican democracy was never
instituted except by pretense. A French thinker, Francois de La Rochefoucauld,
said, "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue." Even while
betraying its principles, the entire world could not resist the compulsion to
embrace the principles of national self-determination through republican
democracy. This effectively was codified as the global gold standard of
national morality in the charters of the League of Nations and then the United
Nations.
The Imperfection of
the Nation-State
The incredible power of the nation-state as a
moral principle and right could be only imperfectly imposed. No nation was
pure. Each had fragments and minorities of other nations. In many cases, they
lived with each other. In other cases, the majority tried to expel or even
destroy the minority nation. In yet other cases, the minority demanded
independence and the right to form its own nation-state. These conflicts were
not only internal; they also caused external conflict over the right of a
particular nation to exist or over the precise borders separating the nations.
Europe in particular tore itself apart in wars
between 1914 and 1945 over issues related to the rights of nation-states, with
the idea of the nation-state being taken to its reductio ad absurdum -- by the
Germans as a prime example. After the war, a principle emerged in Europe that
the borders as they stood, however imperfect, were not to be challenged. The
goal was to abolish one of the primary causes of war in Europe.
The doctrine was imperfectly applied. The
collapse of the Soviet Union abolished one set of borders, turning internal
frontiers into external borders. The Yugoslavian civil war turned into an
international war once Yugoslavia ceased to exist, and into civil wars within
nation-states such as Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia. At the same time, the borders
in the Caucasus were redrawn when newly independent Armenia seized what had
been part of Azerbaijan. And in an act that flew in the face of the principle,
NATO countries divided Serbia into two parts: an Albanian part called Kosovo
and the rest of Serbia.
The point of all this is to understand that the
right to national self-determination comes from deep within European principles
and that it has been pursued with an intensity and even viciousness that has
torn Europe apart and redrawn its borders. One of the reasons that the European
Union exists is to formally abolish these wars of national self-determination
by attempting to create a framework that both protects and trivializes the
nation-state.
Scotland's Case
The possibility of Scottish independence must
be understood in this context. Nationalism, the remembrance and love of history
and culture, is not a trivial thing. It has driven Europe and even the world
for more than two centuries in ever-increasing waves. The upcoming Scottish
election, whichever way it goes, demonstrates the enormous power of the desire
for national self-determination. If it can corrode the British union, it can
corrode anything.
There are those who argue that Scottish
independence could lead to economic problems or complicate the management of
national defense. These are not trivial questions, but they are not what is at
stake here. From an economic point of view, it makes no sense for Scotland to
undergo this sort of turmoil. At best, the economic benefits are uncertain. But
this is why any theory of human behavior that assumes that the singular purpose
of humans is to maximize economic benefits is wrong. Humans have other
motivations that are incomprehensible to the economic model but can be
empirically demonstrated to be powerful. If this referendum succeeds, it will
still show that after more than 300 years, almost half of Scots prefer economic
uncertainty to union with a foreign nation.
This is something that must be considered
carefully in a continent that is prone to extreme conflicts and still full of
borders that do not map to nations as they are understood historically.
Catalonia, whose capital is Barcelona, the second-largest and most vibrant city
in Spain, has a significant independence movement. The Treaty of Trianon
divided Hungary so that some Hungarians live in Romania, while others live in
Slovakia. Belgium consists of French and Dutch groups (Walloons and Fleming),
and it is not too extreme to say they detest each other. The eastern half of
Poland was seized by the Soviet Union and is now part of Ukraine and Belarus.
Many Chechens and Dagestanis want to secede from Russia, as do Karelians, who
see themselves as Finns. There is a movement in northern Italy to separate its
wealthy cities from the rest of Italy. The war between Azerbaijan and Armenia
is far from settled. Myriad other examples can be found in Europe alone.
The right to national self-determination is not
simply about the nation governing itself but also about the right of the nation
to occupy its traditional geography. And since historical memories of geography
vary, the possibility of conflict grows. Consider Ireland: After its fight for
independence from England and then Britain, the right to Northern Ireland,
whose national identity depended on whose memory was viewing it, resulted in
bloody warfare for decades.
Scottish independence would transform British
history. All of the attempts at minimizing its significance miss the point. It
would mean that the British island would be divided into two nation-states, and
however warm the feelings now, they were not warm in the past nor can we be
sure that they will be warm in the future. England will be vulnerable in ways
that it hasn't been for three centuries. And Scotland will have to determine its
future. The tough part of national self-determination is the need to make
decisions and live with them.
This is not an argument for or against Scottish
nationhood. It is simply drawing attention to the enormous power of nationalism
in Europe in particular, and in countries colonized by Europeans. Even Scotland
remembers what it once was, and many -- perhaps a majority and perhaps a large
minority -- long for its return. But the idea that Scotland recalls its past
and wants to resurrect it is a stunning testimony less to Scottish history than
to the Enlightenment's turning national rights into a moral imperative that
cannot be suppressed.
More important, perhaps, is that although
Yugoslavia and the Soviet collapse were not seen as precedents for the rest of
Europe, Scotland would be seen that way. No one can deny that Britain is an
entity of singular importance. If that can melt away, what is certain? At a
time when the European Union's economic crisis is intense, challenging European
institutions and principles, the dissolution of the British union would
legitimize national claims that have been buried for decades.
But then we have to remember that Scotland was
buried in Britain for centuries and has resurrected itself. This raises the
question of how confident any of us can be that national claims buried for only
decades are settled. I have no idea how the Scottish will vote. What strikes me
as overwhelmingly important is that the future of Britain is now on the table,
and there is a serious possibility that it will cease to be in the way it was.
Nationalism has a tendency to move to its logical conclusion, so I put little
stock in the moderate assurances of the Scottish nationalists. Nor do I find
the arguments against secession based on tax receipts or banks' movements
compelling. For centuries, nationalism has trumped economic issues. The model
of economic man may be an ideal to some, but it is empirically false. People
are interested in economic well-being, but not at the exclusion of all else. In
this case, it does not clearly outweigh the right of the Scottish nation to
national-self determination.
I think that however the vote goes, unless the
nationalists are surprised by an overwhelming defeat, the genie is out of the
bottle, and not merely in Britain. The referendum will re-legitimize questions
that have caused much strife throughout the European continent for centuries,
including the 31-year war of the 20th century that left 80 million dead.
George Friedman, Stratfor, September 16, 2014
"The Origins and Implications of the Scottish Referendum is republished with permission of Stratfor."
"The Origins and Implications of the Scottish Referendum is republished with permission of Stratfor."
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Não publicamos comentários de anônimos/desconhecidos.
Por favor, se optar por "Anônimo", escreva o seu nome no final do comentário.
Não use CAIXA ALTA, (Não grite!), isto é, não escreva tudo em maiúsculas, escreva normalmente. Obrigado pela sua participação!
Volte sempre!
Abraços./-